Jump to content


American Tier II/III Heavy Fighter


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Warpath1984 #1 Posted 12 December 2015 - 04:29 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Hey I want to suggest that there needs to be some kind of Tier 2 or 3 American heavy fighter to offset the German Tier 2 and 3 heavy fighters. I suggest something like the B-17 Flying Fortress.

losttwo #2 Posted 12 December 2015 - 04:34 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 2247 battles
  • 13,394
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

You wont be in tier 2 and 3 long enough to warrant WG making one.

Besides the F2F, F3F, I-16(e), I-15 w/rockets are great counters for the German Heavies.

The P-12 is also good against he German heavies if you like flying tier 1's

 

Besides the B-17 is bomber meant for high altitude bomb runs.

The AO-192 and FW-57 are not bombers but Heavy Fighters .

Technically the Ao-192 was a transport.


Edited by losttwo, 12 December 2015 - 05:20 PM.


BrushWolf #3 Posted 12 December 2015 - 06:18 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 80 battles
  • 5,907
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View Postlosttwo, on 12 December 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

You wont be in tier 2 and 3 long enough to warrant WG making one.

Besides the F2F, F3F, I-16(e), I-15 w/rockets are great counters for the German Heavies.

The P-12 is also good against he German heavies if you like flying tier 1's

 

Besides the B-17 is bomber meant for high altitude bomb runs.

The AO-192 and FW-57 are not bombers but Heavy Fighters .

Technically the Ao-192 was a transport.

 

Actually the FW-57 is a bomber, the only one in the game. On the op I don't think the US had many aircraft that fit the heavy fighter classification as the game has it before the P-38.

I used to have a handle on life until it broke off.

                             

 

“The church is near but the road is icy, the tavern is far away but I will walk carefully”

Russian Proverb

 


An_Average_Jho #4 Posted 12 December 2015 - 11:02 PM

    Helvetic Polyglot

  • Alpha tester
  • 57 battles
  • 2,588
  • [WWPD] WWPD
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBrushWolf, on 12 December 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

 

Actually the FW-57 is a bomber, the only one in the game. On the op I don't think the US had many aircraft that fit the heavy fighter classification as the game has it before the P-38.

 

99% sure the FW-57 is a Zestörer like the Bf110 and the Me410, as it was designed with the 20mm fixed forward firing armament from its conception. The closest plane in WoWp that wasn't meant as a heavy-fighter is the Ao 192 Kurier, which was a transport aircraft that had blueprints for combat & scouting modifications.


Everything tastes better if it tries to eat you before you eat it

I named my airplane Iosef because it kept on Stalin

 

"Quod natura non dat, Salmantica non præstat"


J311yfish #5 Posted 13 December 2015 - 12:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2202 battles
  • 1,313
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

You might be able to make a case for:

 

Lockheed YP-24

Consolidated P-30

 

leading up to Bell P-39

 

all designed by Robert Woods.


Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins// International

Historical projects:  UNITED STATES   GERMANY  •  Poland  //  USSR  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


BrushWolf #6 Posted 13 December 2015 - 04:49 AM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 80 battles
  • 5,907
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostAn_Average_Jho, on 12 December 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

 

99% sure the FW-57 is a Zestörer like the Bf110 and the Me410, as it was designed with the 20mm fixed forward firing armament from its conception. The closest plane in WoWp that wasn't meant as a heavy-fighter is the Ao 192 Kurier, which was a transport aircraft that had blueprints for combat & scouting modifications.

 

It was designed for a different specification as a bomber and not a Zerstörer.

 

View PostJ311yfish, on 12 December 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

You might be able to make a case for:

 

Lockheed YP-24

Consolidated P-30

 

leading up to Bell P-39

 

all designed by Robert Woods.

 

The game design treats single engine fighter types as light fighters or as multi-role and twin engine as heavy.

I used to have a handle on life until it broke off.

                             

 

“The church is near but the road is icy, the tavern is far away but I will walk carefully”

Russian Proverb

 


J311yfish #7 Posted 13 December 2015 - 01:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2202 battles
  • 1,313
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostBrushWolf, on 13 December 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

The game design treats single engine fighter types as light fighters or as multi-role and twin engine as heavy.

 

I think you will find that as the game develops older notions are likely to be discarded.  There was a time, for example, when the 'multi-role' category did not exist, and rocket-powered aircraft like the Mitsubishi J8M were against precedent (in fact, your first comments were against the J8M for that reason -- here).  The Fisher XP-75 Eagle is another example that stretches the conventional definition of a heavy fighter, and you will definitely see more stretching of definitions with Japan, so standby for that.

 

Regarding the original post, and the goal to identify 'heavy fighter' qualities for U.S.A. at lower tiers, I think that the Lockheed YP-24 and its follow-on development makes a very strong case for tiers II and III.  Compare directly to Hawker Demon and Blackburn Skua which are 'multi-role' U.K. aircraft from the same timeframe.  The V-1570 engine has already been identified as a tier II/III engine, yet the speeds obtained are ~60-80 km/h faster than the Demon and Skua at those tiers.  A reliable source claims that it was the first U.S. production fighter to use a turbo-supercharged engine. [Forgotten Fighters and Experimental Aircraft - U.S. Army 1918-1941, by Peter M. Bowers (1971 Arco)]

 

There was a time also (prior to 'multi-role') when the Demon and Skua were considered to be 'heavy fighters'.  I think you see where this is going.  Anyway, rather than debate semantics, I think the emphasis should be on the function of the actual aircraft when placed in context with other aircraft developments.  There might be a worthy debate there.


Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins// International

Historical projects:  UNITED STATES   GERMANY  •  Poland  //  USSR  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures


BrushWolf #8 Posted 13 December 2015 - 06:43 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 80 battles
  • 5,907
  • [GWG] GWG
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 13 December 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

 

I think you will find that as the game develops older notions are likely to be discarded.  There was a time, for example, when the 'multi-role' category did not exist, and rocket-powered aircraft like the Mitsubishi J8M were against precedent (in fact, your first comments were against the J8M for that reason -- here).  The Fisher XP-75 Eagle is another example that stretches the conventional definition of a heavy fighter, and you will definitely see more stretching of definitions with Japan, so standby for that.

 

Regarding the original post, and the goal to identify 'heavy fighter' qualities for U.S.A. at lower tiers, I think that the Lockheed YP-24 and its follow-on development makes a very strong case for tiers II and III.  Compare directly to Hawker Demon and Blackburn Skua which are 'multi-role' U.K. aircraft from the same timeframe.  The V-1570 engine has already been identified as a tier II/III engine, yet the speeds obtained are ~60-80 km/h faster than the Demon and Skua at those tiers.  A reliable source claims that it was the first U.S. production fighter to use a turbo-supercharged engine. [Forgotten Fighters and Experimental Aircraft - U.S. Army 1918-1941, by Peter M. Bowers (1971 Arco)]

 

There was a time also (prior to 'multi-role') when the Demon and Skua were considered to be 'heavy fighters'.  I think you see where this is going.  Anyway, rather than debate semantics, I think the emphasis should be on the function of the actual aircraft when placed in context with other aircraft developments.  There might be a worthy debate there.

 

True, but if you trace my later comments on that you will see that I did see a possible way to make them work which is pretty much how they did it. They do still seem to be holding with the heavies have two engines definition as the upcoming P-47 is a multi-role which means not bad at air to air and pretty useless against ground targets because they do not have the armor to survive in an AA filled environment.

 

The devs seem to look at the plane classes as this, fighters are the plane killers, GA are just that ground attack, heavies are big fast multi-engine fighters with some ground attack abilities using ordnance only, and multi-role are heavy fighter lites. Because of how the plane classifications impact how a particular plane performs that is an important point to discuss. I think the Hurricane IId, which was a tank buster aka ground attack with no real air to air ability, is a good example of this. By putting it in the multi-role class it can't perform the ground role because of the lack of armor and health but at the same time is unable to perform the air to air role with any real ability.

 

 


I used to have a handle on life until it broke off.

                             

 

“The church is near but the road is icy, the tavern is far away but I will walk carefully”

Russian Proverb

 


J311yfish #9 Posted 13 December 2015 - 10:09 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2202 battles
  • 1,313
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

There is also the matter of Tier IV, if the goal is to lead to the P-38 at Tier V.

 

As it is now, the P-38 stems from the P-40 on the basis of V-1710 engine progression without consideration for earlier attempts at twin-engine development.

 

1936 competition -- proposal deadline 03/15/1936:

-- Lockheed XPB-3/XFM-2 -- lost to what would become the Bell XFM-1 Airacuda; tricycle landing gear

-- Bell XFM-1 Airacuda -- Robert Woods (designer of Lockheed YP-24, Consolidated P-30); prototype contract awarded 05/1936; wings joined to fuselage 07/1937; first flight 09/01/1937; accepted at Wright Field 10/21/1937; extensively tested 1938-1939; contract 05/20/1938 for 13 service trial XFM-1 aircraft, 9 completed as such; YFM-1 first flight 09/28/1939; first delivered 02/23/1940, last delivered 07/30/1940; 3 completed as YFM-1A with nosewheel undercarriage; 2 converted to YFM-1B; 13th not completed; "a mix of innovations and oddities." (Pelletier)

 

1937 competition X-608 -- issued 01/08/1937:

-- twin-engine interceptor, 360-400 mph @ 20,000', climb to 20,000' in 6 min.

-- Lockheed Model 22-64-01 -- proposal submitted 04/1937; contract for prototype awarded 06/23/1937; first flight 01/27/1939; becomes P-38

-- Vultee XP1015

-- Boeing (not specified)

-- Consolidated (not specified)

-- Curtiss (not specified)

-- Douglas (not specified)

 

1937 competition X-609 -- issued 03/19/1937:

-- single-engine interceptor, top speed of 360-400 mph @ 20,000', cannon armament, nose-wheel gear

-- Bell Model 3

-- Bell Model 4 -- proposal submitted 06/03/1937; prototype ordered 10/07/1937; became P-39; first flight 04/06/1939

-- others

 

So, like this:

 

Tier Fighter (in-game) Fighter (speculative)  Heavy Fighter (speculative + in-game) Multi-Role (incoming)
II Curtiss P-23   Lockheed YP-24 (Robert Woods) Boeing P-26
III Curtiss Hawk 75M   Consolidated P-30 (Robert Woods) Seversky P-35
IV Curtiss P-36

 <--------------------------

Bell YFM-1 Airacuda (Robert Woods) or

Lockheed XPB-3/XFM-2 (precursor to P-38) or

Vultee XP1015 (competitor to P-38)

Republic P-43
V Curtiss P-40 Bell P-39 (team led by Robert Woods) Lockheed P-38F Republic XP-44
VI North American P-51A Bell P-39 (contd) Lockheed P-38J Republic P-47B
VII North American P-51D Bell P-63 Grumman F7F Republic P-47N
VIII North American P-51H Bell P-63 (contd) Chance-Vought XF5U Republic XP-72
IX North American FJ-1 Bell XP-83 (Robert Woods and Charles Rhodes) McDonnell F2H Republic F-84B
X North American F-86A Bell X-5 project (Robert Woods from P.1101) Lockheed XF-90 Republic F-84F

 

Lockheed YP-24, Consolidated P-30, Bell YFM-1A Airacuda, and Lockheed XPB-3 are all multi-seat fighters before the concept fell out of fashion; Bell YFM-1 Airacuda, Lockheed XPB-3 and Vultee XP1015 are all twin engine.  The progression mechanism is similar to that employed by the United Kingdom with Demon / Skua / Blenheim, though with significantly greater speed.

 

One question though is, if this is reasonable, why was it not done until now?  Possible answers:

1) planned as part of eventual Bell progression

2) planned as part of eventual attack aircraft progression

3) not planned

 

I have said before that there is compelling evidence to suggest that the tech trees are already established on paper in great detail, because it makes possible the selection of premium aircraft (gift planes, etc.) that do not cannibalize future progression.  If one of the aircraft identified above is removed to be a premium, then it is (obviously) a strong indicator of how the rest of these will materialize.

 

Something else -- if 'multi-role' aircraft are truly considered to be "heavy-lights" (that is, a light fighter pulled to the heavy side of the spectrum), then there may also be another category of fighter in the future with fighters pulled towards attack aircraft.  Strike fighter?  As in the Vampire which so far remains absent?

 

Spectrum (current):

Fighter Multirole Fighter Heavy Fighter Attack Aircraft

 

Spectrum (speculative):

Heavy Fighter Multirole Fighter Fighter Strike Fighter Attack Aircraft

 


Edited by J311yfish, 20 December 2015 - 05:23 PM.

Tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins// International

Historical projects:  UNITED STATES   GERMANY  •  Poland  //  USSR  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial How to ignore forum posts and signatures





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users